A List Of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago

GILDING THE LILY: Jim Emerson, a film critic whose piercing analysis I've always appreciated, does the kind of thorough analysis of Million Dollar Baby that you rarely see these days, and it's quite worth your time (once you've seen the movie). Sometimes, you need to be able to talk about the whole movie to discuss it in any kind of meaningful fashion, and this is one of those films.

And he likes it, but he finds flaws:

I can’t think of another film that has won so much acclaim for being “deep,” while given only the most superficial exploration by even its most ardent partisans. For a while in December and January I began to think “Million Dollar Baby” was less a movie than a religion, a sacred object beyond criticism of any kind. I couldn’t find anybody – even professional film critics – who wanted to talk about it. It was as if you either drank the “Million Dollar” Kool-aid or you didn’t, and that was all there was to say about it. . . .

But, to me, “Million Dollar Baby” seems a little too calculated to be convincing; it’s so self-consciously “classical” and fussy in its austere design, that it seems clinical – more of an exercise in filmmaking than a fully reazlized film. At times it made me think of a paint-by-numbers masterpiece, if there can be such a thing.

To find out why, read the article. His analysis covers many of Henry's concerns here (spoiler-link!), and I tend to agree with him, especially on Eastwood's take on Maggie's family. Take a gander.